Godet 1914 EK1 or ........

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

I've linked an obverse scan of 4 crosses. Which, if any/all, was/were made by Godet? Should be easy

Regards
Mike



Here's a link to a larger image for beading detail if required;

http://members.iinet.net.au/~datumge...-obv-x400a.jpg

[gregM]

I think that 1 and 2 are Godets. I am more certain of 2 than 1 but I think
that both probably are OK. Seeing the shape or style of pins would be the
kicker. Numbers 3 and 4 have somewhat similar beading but the corner
charactoristics are much less defined. Also the 9s in the dates are noticably different plus the crowns are somewhat different. Without seeing the backs (pins, catches ect) I would say that these are probably not Godets but I would not say that with 100% certainty.
These corner charactoristics plus the oval backing plate are what leads to believe that Davids cross is a Godet.
Here is a close up of a Godet that shows the distinct corner pattern.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Greg,

There's a link at the bottom of Post#1 with bigger scans. Let me know if you need bigger again.

Regards
Mike

[gregM]

I saw the link and used it before I posted my reply. My answer is still
the same.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Greg,

No worries - just making sure.

I'll give it another day before posting the reverse. Maybe Tony or Marshall (and any others) want to "play"?

Regards
Mike

[Biro]

Hi Mike

Agree - no's 1 & 2 look decidedly 'Godet' - but as this is obviously a trick question .. I'll say

#2 is 100% textbook Godet.

#1 is tough - the core looks Godet type - but as the frame matches #4 (which I beleive has a Wagner core), I'll say it's a Wagner... as are the rest.

How wrong am I??...

Marshall

[FW 200]

I believe all four are Godets, from the inner beading. Charlie

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

As Marshall correctly surmised, there was a trick question involved. The idea was to show that Godet used two core types, which were both shared by at least one other maker.

Marshall, great pick-up on the beading flaw on #s 1 & 4. I hadn't fully noticed it myself! I've checked other examples from this maker and it seems to be a progressive fault as I have a couple of examples which do not show it. Here's the rub though - #2 & #3 are slightly different in the same area!

OK, here's the reverse. Not numbered, but nothing was "shuffled" - the crosses are in the same positions.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

More of Godet interest in my next post.

Regards
Mike

[Mike Kenny]

Now, here's an obverse scan of 8 crosses. All share exactly the same core. Some of them appear to share frames as well. The top two should be apparent, but two others are from other makers. Since making this scan, I've found another maker marked example which also shares the same core. Notice that there are some flat crosses as well.
.

.
.
Don't you just love Imperial EKs - they drive you crazy sometimes

Regards
Mike

[gregM]

WOW-very interesting.

[Biro]

Very interesting Mike.... good work.

Have you have seen further examples of Godet marked hardware and frames in conjunction with this 2nd type core.. or is this cross (#3) the only example to date?


Marshall

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Marshall,

Unless the pics are mixed up, the zweihaken Godet on P108 in Geissler appears to be the same type as my #3.

Regards
Mike

[gregM]

Here are another pair for your consideration. These belong to Tiger1.
My scans of his pictures are not the best BUT the frame beading and
cores are identical.

[gregM]

The pinback is a "G" marked Godet. The screwback is unmarked BUT as
mentioned earlier--It is identical to the pinback. A unmarked screwback
Godet.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Greg,

I can't see the beading in the critical area (Post#6) so I'll take your word that the two crosses are identical. I still disagree with the statement that the nice unmarked oval-shaped screwback is a Godet. In the absence of a maker mark, there is ONLY a good POSSIBILITY that it is a Godet - that is my point, it is not definitive.

From what I've seen in Imperial EK1s, if an unmarked example looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a FISH. Imo there was simply too much component sharing and/or co-manufacturing going on and we do not understand it anywhere near enough to make definitive statements in most cases.

The exceptions are when reverse hardware is fairly characteristic and matches known maker marked examples with the same caracteristic hardware - Godets (ONLY with hardware as per crosses 2 or 3 above), Meybauers and some WS examples spring to mind.

Fyi, in the scan of 8 crosses above, the one third row down on the left is an incuse-relief "WS" and the single on the fourth row is an "FR" variant. I also have a "We" (not pictured) which shares the same core.

Regards
Mike